“I’m for people having sensible, registered guns in the home for protection and outside the home for recreation, if they want.”

California is not the place for you. Soldiers assigned to military bases in California have to leave their legally owned and properly configured semiautomatic rifles behind.

When people who hate guns define “sensible,” the result is the present absurdity of safe firearms being kept out of California by the “Safe Gun Roster” while police officers make money on the side by selling non-roster handguns using special privileges; high powered rifles being more legal than short range, limited power carbines; and last but not least, a general lack of firearms safety encouraged by Hollywood using its special get-out-of-jail free card called the “Entertainment Firearms Permit.”

“I’m a strong believer in licenses to carry in public being limited based on need and certified training.”

Given police response times and homicide rates, every trained resident of Oakland would qualify under this standard. I have seen a copy of a CCW rejection letter sent by the Police Chief of the City of Oakland to … a firearms attorney!

As a member of the Pink Pistols, I share a belief that “Armed gays don’t get bashed[.]” and “Our lives are worth defending!”

In practice it is impossible in the San Francisco Bay Area for a law-abiding firearms owner to get a concealed weapons permit. This is even if the firearms owner has survived repeated criminal attacks, lives in a high crime neighborhood, or is at higher risk due to their livelihood or profession.

“To the extent some jurisdictions won’t issue permits even when need is demonstrated, that can be addressed legally.”

Calguns Foundation is trying. There has been a lot of push back and resistance. The same Legislature that wants to ban open carry of long arms rejected proposals to make CCW shall issue.

It looks as though police want a monopoly on firearms in public. I am puzzled as to why otherwise intelligent leftists are so comfortable with this idea.

“Open carry v concealed is an interesting question. If people are packing, I at least want to know it so that I can make my choice about whether I want to be around them.”

The Legislature made this choice for you, first in 1967 when they criminalized loaded firearms in response to the Black Panthers, and now with AB 144 open carry at the behest of law enforcement.

I actually agree that loaded open carry would be a valuable option for exactly that reason. However, this state has historically chosen concealed carry.

You are aware of the racist roots of gun control, and that most of the gun control laws in California were passed to disarm unpopular minorities such as Hispanics (handgun CCW), Japanese-Americans (nunchucks) and blacks (Mulford Act, loaded firearms.)

A remnant of this can be seen in the weapons laws where CCWing a pistol you own is a misdemeanor but carrying a double-edged knife or a pistol you do not own is a felony.

“As for people who think it is or should be their constitutional right to show up at political demonstrations with heavy-duty, military style weapons, loaded or not, let’s just say I disagree.”

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, intimately tied to the human right to self defense as recognized in the common law.

I’m not clear on what you consider a heavy-duty, military style weapon. The M4 and AR being kept in every police officer’s trunk? The .30-.30 deer rifle superior in power and accuracy?

The possession of a concealed pistol or loaded firearm while picketing is already unlawful. (PC 12590)

“Civilians in Iraq under Hussein were well-armed. Most families owned guns. They liked to fire them in the air on holidays. Remember how they fired them in the air when Hussein was ousted? Didn’t seem to enhance their liberties.”

Tell it to the Kurds, the marsh Arabs or any enemy of the Hussein regime. First disarmed, then destroyed.

“Gun carriage is more restricted in Canada than in the U.S., and I haven’t heard many Canadians complaining about being oppressed lately.”

I spent some time in Canada last year. They’re scrapping their Long Gun Registry as unworkable and a waste of money.

1. Each individual is responsible for his/her own personal safety (i.e., that this is not the job of law enforcement);

2. Nothing can save us from people doing dangerous things. There are many parts of Contra Costa in which firing weapons into the air in holiday celebrations is SOP. It is right and proper for the justice system to throw the book at ’em; and

Good thoughtful answers. Some of the “where do you draw the line and on what basis” questions I posed would be more interesting to discuss with Justice Scalia. But he doesn’t answer my calls.

I’m for people having sensible, registered guns in the home for protection and outside the home for recreation, if they want. I’m a strong believer in licenses to carry in public being limited based on need and certified training. To the extent some jurisdictions won’t issue permits even when need is demonstrated, that can be addressed legally. Open carry v concealed is an interesting question. If people are packing, I at least want to know it so that I can make my choice about whether I want to be around them. It’s a little like the hands-free cell phone issue. At least with drivers using hand-held phones, I could see it and protect myself by taking evasive action.

As for people who think it is or should be their constitutional right to show up at political demonstrations with heavy-duty, military style weapons, loaded or not, let’s just say I disagree.

Civilians in Iraq under Hussein were well-armed. Most families owned guns. They liked to fire them in the air on holidays. Remember how they fired them in the air when Hussein was ousted? Didn’t seem to enhance their liberties. Gun carriage is more restricted in Canada than in the U.S., and I haven’t heard many Canadians complaining about being oppressed lately.

You’re right. I failed to respond to your question – got distracted along the way. Thanks for the menu prompt.

I’m no Constitutional scholar or attorney, so I cannot offer you technical legal arguments. I am not an open carry or 2nd Amendment activist. I’m just an average citizen who cherishes individual freedom and understands that private gun ownership is unique in the world. Gun rights are one of the hallmarks of a free society and in a very real way they permit us to maintain our freedoms – or else why would every totalitarian regime on earth outlaw private firearms? Private gun ownership is a right that I cherish.

Let’s just say that, generally speaking, I object to government telling me what to do, what I can purchase and own, etc. But of course all levels of government have already done this in spades as re firearms, so my sense is that your question is a theoretical one because from a practical standpoint it is moot.

That point aside, the only other answer I have is that federal, state and local laws currently restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms to varying degrees. The restrictions vary widely by state and county (see a state-by-state breakdown at: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/). Where those restrictions result in the effective disarming of the populace – as is the case for Californians under AB 144 who reside in those counties that severely limit conceal carry permits – the government clearly oversteps its Constitutional boundaries. In such cases individuals (particularly women, the elderly and the disabled) are rendered unable to defend themselves with firearms, if they so choose.

It is this issue that is of greatest concern to me.

Government agencies restrict conceal carry permits and some counties deny them altogether. When such restrictions are combined with open carry bans, individual rights to carry a firearm (which I prefer to be permitted on a concealed basis anyway) is clearly infringed. Thus this new CA law is vulnerable to challenge and I expect it is only a matter of time before it is overturned.

My only other comment in response to your question is this: I invariably err on the side of individual rights to own and do just about anything, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Gun ownership is among the most highly-regulated items sold in the U.S. Nevertheless, gun registration rules do not prevent crooks from buying firearms, any more than punitively high cigarette taxes prevent, say, smokers from purchasing black market cigs.

If lines need to be drawn regarding 2nd Amendment rights — as indeed they already have been, encompassing the military-grade weaponry and militia issues you reference above — in my view they should be done in a way that is maximally permissive and preserves individual rights.

You make a good point. I need something to protect me from Ted Nugent.

The police generally don’t stop individual street crimes in progress. Their job is primarily to deter crime by patrolling the streets and, as you say, to catch the bad guys when crimes occur. In other words, they reduce the chances that you will be a crime victim in the first place.

Statistically, other than home protection (where there is broad agreement about the right to possess firearms), the odds of somebody who is legally packing ever stopping a crime against either themselves of others are about as great as the odds of getting struck by lightning. I’m more worried about what happens when every hormonal kid on campus is allowed to carry a gun, when road-rage inclined drivers are allowed, when hyper-emotional sports fans get carried away, when the customer at Wal-Mart having a bad day gets mad because he thinks somebody jumped in line ahead of him, etc., etc.

Even if you believe it’s a good idea to allow every law-abiding Tom, Dick and Mary to pack, why the resistance to gun registration, mandatory training, signaturized ammo etc.? What’s the problem with reasonable laws about gun show sales?

Beyond the issue of who, when and where people should be allowed to carry a gun for personal protection, there’s the whole business of high-powered, semi-automatic, military-style arsenals in the possession of people and groups with extremist political agendas. Gun rights advocates seem to feel that stuff is okay, on account of we may need to stop Obama from establishing an Islamic dictatorship.

These chiefs of Police are under the mistaken impression that only they and their officers can provide any legal means of protection. They forgot, or never realized that 99% of the time, the police show up AFTER a crime has been committed to clean up the mess, investigate, and hopefully find and arrest the perpetrators.

For immediate defense, we HAVE to rely on ourselves. Until the day that the Star Trek like transporter is invented, and working, we should never depend on others for our safety and defense. To do so is not only foolish, but naive as well.